In a quiet little corner of Kramerbooks, a bookstore in the heart of Washington’s fashionable Dupont Circle neighbourhood, Amanda Spencer sits by a stack of books on American foreign policy that she has carefully selected from the shelves towering above her. Visiting the city from Texas, the drama student is eager to learn more about Pakistan, which has been propelled into American consciousness as never before. This is, after all, the country from where America’s public enemy number 1 had been hunted and killed.
An embarrassed Spencer admits she didn’t know much about Pakistan or the ISI before the killing of Osama. “When I’d think of Pakistan, I’d think of a conservative society in which women are in veils and men carry guns. That they don’t like America,” Spencer tells Outlook, quickly glancing at her pile of books as if searching for a helpful clue.
For many Americans, Pakistan—greedily pocketing billions of dollars in US aid, while harbouring its arch enemies—isn’t unlike a modern-day eastern equivalent of the treacherous and lawless Wild West of folklore and history. Pakistan’s fragile image has taken such a battering that some Congressmen are threatening to turn off the spigot of US aid. Such misgivings about Pakistan have now started to seep deep into American society. As Eric Johnson, an online consultant in Virginia who served in Iraq with the US Marine Corps, says, “The (Pakistan) regime has helped terrorist networks, distributed the knowledge and equipment to build nuclear weapons, and has a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it. That it’s not currently a threat on the level of Iran is of small comfort.”
Earlier this month, a poll of Americans conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press posed the question: “Is your impression that the government of Pakistan mostly helped or mostly hurt US efforts to find Osama bin Laden, or don’t you know enough?” Thirty-nine per cent said it had “mostly hurt,” compared with the mere six per cent who thought it “mostly helped”. It’s typical that for people like Lisa Hanson, a graduate student of Johns Hopkins University, Pakistan evokes two primal words—chaos and danger. “It feels like a country on the brink. As if it could implode at any moment,” she says. “It’s the single greatest threat to global security.”
The vague negative image it had was only reinforced after Osama was found in the vicinity of the Pakistan Military Academy. Says Annie Nguyen, a newspaper designer and copy editor in California, “Given the history and tension between the United States and Pakistan, the fact that bin Laden was hiding there puts Pakistan in bad light. It undermines the Pakistani government, raises questions about its security measures.”
A majority of Americans Outlook interviewed say Pakistan triggers few positive images. “Benazir Bhutto,” Nguyen offered, adding, “Pakistan is oddly void of any imagery, maybe a few faces here and there, but nothing of the streets, the lifestyle, etc come to mind.” Adds Johnson, “I think of Pakistan as a poor, ill-governed country that is unlikely to see any improvements in its conditions.” Johnson doesn’t blame Pakistan’s plight on its people, who he describes as decent and hard-working, but on its corrupt, governing elite.
The Pakistani government is spending big bucks to repair the country’s image in America, paying the Washington law firm Locke Lord $900,000 a year for its services as a lobbyist. Its effort is led by Mark Siegel, who was a close friend of Benazir Bhutto and co-authored Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West with her. Yet negative perceptions of Pakistan persist.
To be sure, not all Americans go by these broad stereotypes. Some of them know Pakistanis personally. For instance, Charlos Gary, a New York-based cartoonist and graphic designer, considers himself fortunate enough to have had a Pakistani roommate in college, admitting this probably helped give more depth and understanding to his idea about the place. And while the discovery of Osama in Pakistan didn’t surprise him, it hasn’t changed his opinion. “No, it wasn’t a surprise. I feel that the government is very secretive, much like many around the world. I just wish there was a little openness in the whole thing,” says Gary.
There are others who disagree. Mary Vardazarian, an international development professional, says there is never substantial coverage of Pakistan, that she anyway doesn’t rely on the mainstream media to shape her opinions. “I usually assume there are more layers than are reported,” she adds. Agrees Simone Anderson, a fourth-grade teacher in Washington, “We get a very biased view of what is going on, not just in Pakistan but everywhere. That’s why when you speak to Americans they typically don’t have their facts straight.” Gary too says his opinion about Pakistan is not influenced by the mainstream media. “I try not to rely on it to fully shape my view about other countries,” he says. “I prefer to find out for myself. By talking to other people.”
A number of media commentators have rushed to defend Pakistan against the recent backlash following Osama’s killing. They see Pakistan as crucial to America’s success in Afghanistan. But many Americans are uncomfortable with this contrived relationship. “I think the less tied in we are with Pakistan, the better,” says Hanson. Wonder whether the generals are listening to people like Hanson.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Locke Lord Strategies have on their hands perhaps the most uneveiable task.
Their top priority, that of ensuring uninterrupted and undiminished supply of economic and military aid to Pakistan, is perhaps the lesser of the daunting tasks facing them, given the significant amount of vested interest that America has in continuing the aid willy nilly.
The real test lies in 'repairing' their client's image. Only a con trick of the highest order can convince the US, as indeed the rest of the world, that the rogue nation is improtant enough to be allowed to fail them over and over again, be chronically duplicitous, and yet be regarded as an ally!
Locke Lord can, however, plough back though their fees, a measly part of the $ 20 million aid that their client has been the beneficiary of for last three years.
Good! The Americasn only got to know about the rabid dog called Pakistani terrorists, which they had been feeding thru weapons and aid, only after it has bit them....
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT